User reviews

Jonathan Larson, in case you don't know, was the guy who wrote that mega and award-winning hit "Rent" but who was already dead from a brain aneurysm before the opening night. You might call it a tragic success story since Larson never lived long enough to know how much he was appreciated though if Lin-Manuel Miranda's film "tick, tick...BOOM!" is anything to go by Larson always knew just how good he was. He may never have been a 'success' during his lifetime but he was clearly gifted, (Sondheim was a fan), and not lacking in self-confidence.

The movie itself is based on Larson's less well known musical autobiography, a kind of one-man show complete with backing singers and band and Miranda opens it out very nicely so we aren't stuck watching a guy performing in a theatre and as rock-cum-broadway showtunes musicals go, it isn't half bad.

Larson, himself, is played by Andrew Garfield, a remarkably talented actor who can now add a fine singing voice to his CV. Unfortunately, he is also extremely annoying. If this was what Larson was really like let's say I find his brand of chutzpah very grating and Garfield lays it on with a trowel. Yes, it's nice his story is finally being told but I just wish I could have liked him more.

Self obsessed 20something New York artsy production, made by self obsessed 20something New York artsy someones for self obsessed 20something New York artsy viewers.

He's human, he's mortal.... so.....?

As a film, it lacks depth, the whole thing hangs on the protagonists mortality.

Constant over acting creates unnecessary dis-ease, as though without it, there would be nothing...which is 100% correct.

I guess it helps if you think Jonathan Larson is an important figure in musical theater. I guess it helps if you think 'Rent' was great. I guess it helps if you buy into all the hype surrounding Lin-Manuel Miranda. I don't.

I do, however, agree with the hype surrounding Andrew Garfield's performance. Sensational. That's why I gave this film a 5 rather than a 1 or 2.

Just like all the reviews written here, if you don't have some affiliation or predisposition to musicals, over hyped drama, or Broadway in general, just don't bother.

To say its artsy and pretentious is an understatement of enormous magnitude, and whilst I can see the appeal to the 'Frasier Crane' fraternity, I imagine most mere mortals would be somewhat more conservative with their praise and measured in the use of superlatives for the description and review of this title.

In all fairness it wasn't bad. There were elements of it I found entertaining, interesting and even enjoyable, but it was all still very average. I'll not dissect it since I don't think I'm either qualified to do so since I'm probably not the target audience, nor would doing so be constructive in the contexts of providing any useful information on whether or not to see it.

However, suffice it to say but can't imagine it will have mass appeal nor for that matter do I expect this page to be inundated with reviews given the relatively narrow focus of the material, but I hope this does provide some balance to the opinions already expressed as well as a slightly different perspective.

OK so I'm going to give it 5/10 which I think is a honest score. Based on the title, the reviews and your personal inclinations, I'm pretty sure you're already decided if its your type of movie or not.

Gets a firm 'Meh' from me.

...or you're not.

I'm not in that group who came of age and went crazy for RENT with its slick, skin-deep score and wholly unlikable characters, which brings us to "tick, tick...BOOM" which suffers from more or less the same issues.

Writing about writing, or seeking to make "the art of making art" your main dramatic thrust has two built-in traps. One, it isn't inherently dramatic, and two, your lead character comes across as self-obsessed, navel-gazing and unlikable pretty quickly. Often accomplished artists are like this in real life, but it's not fun to watch...and dull. This film falls into both traps as if it never sees them coming, which it well should have!

The music is pleasant enough and wholly unmemorable, there wasn't one melody that stuck with me for even five minutes and the lyrics are bland. Light pop dreck, which apparently is very popular. That being said, I don't think anyone could hide these flaws better than Andrew Garfield, but even as winning as he is, you want to kick him after an hour, he is very unpleasant to spend time with.

The film is full of distractions, inside baseball (theater) references and gimmicky moments, but they cannot sustain the dramatic vacuum. It seems bizarre to basically admit that Larson's career doesn't take off until he exploits the tragedy of the AIDS epidemic happening all around him to which he is only a sideline viewer. It seems somewhat opportunistic, even assuming his fine intentions. The dialogue given to Robin De Jesus is anachronistic and not what any gay people were thinking in 1990. I don't know that "Marriage Equality" was on the minds of people just trying to survive the AIDS epidemic. Some woke moments force you out of the story which was too bad. It is all somewhat maudlin, on-the-nose, and eventually wears you out.

If you're in the thrall of Larson/RENT you will see none of this, but if you're not....beware.

We lasted an hour marveling that Andrew Garfield could sing, but then reality set in, even before the yawns. The score was too mundane and narrative. I liked the performances, but the story just wasn't there. Yes, I realize that it is a true story. Turning this off and going back to old reruns was the prudent choice.

As a movie,we have to imagine if it was on the stage that meight be better than now,thinking of the scenes such as Sunday Brunch. As for a musical,no one song could be recalled after watching. After watching,I've looked for The Rent immediately. Good sounds,it's just absolutly. Boring is just boring.

New title suggestion: "How to turn a dynamic, wonderful rock opera into a dragged-out soppy movie." I would love to see a music theater version. Is there one? It would be a killer, but the story of making it would be so-so. All great music theater works have struggles that are not particularly noteworthy. I got tired of fast forwarding it to find the songs, but I truly enjoyed all I found. Sigh.

All things considered a too mediocre work for such a tragic story. I see that it is based off of an existing musical, the writings pretty good, but every other aspect in my eyes is just a bit too boring. I even found myself napping through the first act. 5/10.

An uncomfortably sincere bit of teenage poetry, brought to us by a trio of men (Miranda, Garfield, and Larson) who can't help but wear their theatre-kid-hearts on their sleeves, for better and worse...but it's still better than Rent. (And when are we gonna get a full-length Sondheim doc starring Bradley Whitford???)

It's great to bring up a not-so-known artist story, but it has kind of bored me, I couldn't be moved by the songs nor the events.

I liked Vanessa Hudgens existence and beautiful singing voice!

Tick, tick... BOOM! Piero Scarufi classified this piece with these words: 'SO... SO...'.

Bad points: the scenery and the costumes are poor, uncharacterized, anachronistic. Filming and editing are horrible.

Strong points: the script/knowledge of the film is good. The acting is also good. It's soundtrack is amazing.

My review follows the frame of this piece: confusing and tedious. But, I can't give an opinion before watching Larson's musicals. So, disregard my opinion.

My scores for the movie:

Script: 3/5

Knowledge: 3/5

Scenery: 2/5

Costume: 2/5

Soundtrack: 5/5

Filming: 2/5

Editing: 2/5

Acting: 4/5

Total = 23/8 = 2.875/5 = 5/10.

Andrew Garfield is a great actor, and I like his work, but is his performance in this movie as good as they say? It's one of his best performances to date (from what I have seen), but it's not crazy. Will he get nominated for an Oscar? Very likely. Does he deserve to win? I'm not so sure about that.

It's an okay movie, I just found it boring. Some of the musical numbers were great and some parts were emotional, but overall I was not very intrigued. But if you enjoy musicals and theater you might just give it a try.

I was really looking forward to see this film but it was just not good. It felt really forced and it didn't had the energy I thought it would have.

Some parts were entertaining but overall it was a really poor film.

It didn't do justice to the life and legacy of Jonathan Larson.

This film was quite boring especially for a musical. It has a lot of similarities to the film All That Jazz in. Concept but feels cheapened. This film especially feels cheap in the music department. Lots of taurine and stock sounding background. Overall I found this movie quite boring and is not saying anything new.

I'm not a massive fan of the subject (Rent bores the hell out of me), but Garfield does a fantastic job.

The movie itself though, is a musical, and a musical is only as good as its songs. And these I honestly dont quite like.

You might though, and if you do, it is really well made, with a great lead and a good cast.

The story of a musical script writer in New York City chasing his dream. I saw this movie because I like musical movies, and I was a little disappointed. The main character was too goofy for his age, which annoyed me. This needed a little more scope in the storytelling. I think New York is a place where people feel the passage of time. I did notice that the actress who is princess in "Hamilton" was in the cafe.

Full-on, fully disclosed, full disclosure here: this esteemed reviewer, despite being a composer, musician, performer, artist, screenplay author, novella author, producer, director, primary talent, star of public access, star of webisodes, editor, noted food enthusiast (judge of a chili competition), bon vivant, chef, cook, epicure, philosopher, linguist, professor, doctor, educator, leader from behind, leader from in front, leader from all sides, grower, shower, and all-around aesthete, does not enjoy Broadway musicals.

It is thus, and perhaps without regret, I give this movie a hard pass, a swipe left, a "not for me, thank you." The songs are bad, the story is beyond uninteresting, and I would almost have rather spent two hours in an airport eating something that smelled good but proved to be traditional airport fare with its indications of costing too much, being prepared somewhere which was assuredly not this particular airport within which the food was purchased (and eaten), the whole time I'm trying to write a song to complete a musical for a female character which is definitely, definitely not a thinly-veiled caricature of an actual love interest, making me perhaps just another crappy, misunderstood genius who is unable to pull his own head out of his head and Be Here Now.

It does suck, of course, that he died before he was able to afford rent.

1 hour and 55 minutes of unabashed narcissism and mediocre music -- wow! And Steven Sondheim, a genius, was really impressed with this ____? Really? And Lin-Manuel Miranda, whose Hamilton I hold in the highest esteem, credits Jonathan Larson as being one of his mentors? Seriously?

The five stars are for the talented actors who played the main characters.